Chaplain Klingenschmitt on religious freedom...

[A.E. Brownstein]

With Chaplain Klingenschmitt's permission, I am posting below two questions 
I sent to him and his response  (My questions are below the Chaplain's 
response.)




Professor Brownstein, thanks for your important questions, far below, and 
feel free to post this response online:

1.  Who's in charge during worship, the Commanding Officer or the 
Chaplain?  In the military, one man's "religious diversity" is another 
man's "religious divisiveness."  So it's logically impossible to celebrate 
diversity and punish divisiveness at the same time...we must choose one or 
the other.  As a chaplain, I advocated for religious diversity, but my 
commanding officer punished religious divisiveness.  Perhaps the tension 
was inherent in our different roles and responsibilities.  But my CO 
crossed the line when he punished me for quoting the "divisive" scripture 
John 3:36 during a sermon, in the base chapel, at an optionally-attended 
worship service, advertised as a Christian memorial service, honoring the 
Christian faith of my deceased Sailor who was a member of my 
flock.  No.  Federal Law gives the Chaplain, not the CO, full authority 
over worship inside the chapel, period.  Does anybody disagree?  See Ridgon 
vs. Perry, Title 10 Section 6031, Lee vs. Weisman, Article VI religious 
test for office, First Amendment, etc.

2.  You ask how a commanding officer can build unity and cohesion among 
diverse people who hold extreme or provocative religious views, so they'll 
get along and do the mission.  This is a noble quest!   But I see perhaps 
two options, two philosophically divergent approaches:

       a.)  Create unity by GETTING ALL SAILORS TO WORSHIP THE SAME GOD and 
pray/preach/believe the same universalist message.  The CO could discourage 
(even punish) public expression of any 'divisive' religious beliefs, and 
create a religious test for office (to deny chaplaincy to anyone who 
mentions hell in their sermons, for example), and instead mandate that all 
religious expressions conform to one 'command-approved' PLURALISTIC 
religious message (i.e. that we're all going to heaven), and discourage any 
'divisive-sectarian' public prayers to Allah or Jesus or Adonai, instead 
permitting only 'inclusive-pluralistic' public prayers to "God" only (as 
the Naval Chaplain School illegally enforces in mandatory prayer 
lectures...see here:
<http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixJTotalitarianPluralismLectures.pdf>http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixJTotalitarianPluralismLectures.pdf
and the Naval Chief of Chaplains has also intimidated junior 
chaplains...see here:
<http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixNAdmiralDirectsPrayers.pdf>http://persuade.tv/againstgoliath/AppendixNAdmiralDirectsPrayers.pdf
both types of "government-sanitized prayer guidance" the Supreme Court has 
already ruled are violations of the Establishment Clause, Lee vs. Weisman, 
which I quoted in my email before.)

OR

       b.)  Create unity by PROMOTING TOLERANCE FOR SAILORS WORSHIPPING 
DIFFERENT GODS and tolerate praying/preaching/believing divergent (even 
opposing) messages:  The CO could allow public expression of many sectarian 
religious beliefs (even the divisive ones), while modeling tolerance toward 
those diverse beliefs, especially those with which he personally disagrees, 
(i.e. hell and Jesus), and teach Sailors TOLERANCE toward sectarian or 
extreme views (so long as they don't incite violence or treason), by 
allowing (even celebrating) free public expression of divergent views, even 
if extreme.  I call this "Democratic Diversity" and it's a better 
model.  But the Navy's "Totalitarian Pluralism" shows intolerance toward 
all faiths, not just evangelicals.  Navy Pluralism mandates religious 
conformity, and punishes diversity.  On my ship,! I saw pluralism enforced 
to make my Jewish Sailor go without Kosher meals.  Pluralism denied my 
Muslim Sailor the opportunity to take a turn and pray to Allah on the 
ship's microphone.  Pluralism denied my deceased Catholic Sailor the right 
to have 'non-inclusive' Catholic scriptures (like John 3:36) read at his 
own memorial service.  Pluralism denied my Evangelical Sailors the option 
to attend a non-gay Protestant church at Fleet Week.  Instead my CO (as 
advised by four liberal senior chaplains) enforced "non-sectarian 
pluralism" to deny Sailors of ALL faiths the same basic religious freedoms 
they sacrifice to give others overseas.  In each instance he overruled my 
advice, then punished me for non-conformity, and now he's trying to end my 
career, all in the name of maintaining "religious unity."  Good grief.  Do 
his actions model religious tolerance for his Sailors ! to 
follow?  No.  Instead he used government authority to punish religious 
diversity.

3.  You ask what a chaplain should do for those of different faiths, if 
they don't have a chaplain available.  Again we "preach to our own, 
facilitate for other faiths (i.e. by appointing lay-leaders and helping 
them advertise their own meetings), and we care for all."  I helped Sailors 
of other faiths on my ship by appointing a Roman Catholic lay-leader to 
lead his crowd, a Protestant lay-leader to teach Bible studies, and I 
hosted our Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, and Orthodox Sailors to teach religion 
classes, I bought Buddhist-bibles and Korans, I asked the CO to let them 
say diverse prayers on the ship's microphone (which he denied, instead 
telling his Christian Chaplain to say only Jewish prayers), I fought for 
Kosher meals for my Jewish Sailor and I was actually punished for helping 
him (and he later lost 17 pounds), and I never denied ANY religious request 
made by any Sailor of any faith.  Perhaps t! hat's why 84% of my Sailors 
agreed on a survey, "The Command Chaplain cares for all denominations, 
regardless of faith or belief."  Obviously I cannot preach Buddhism, (I 
don't know how, and it'd violate my vows to my civilian endorsing Bishop), 
but I can facilitate to help them preach and practice among themselves.  So 
to paraphrase the Atheist Voltaire:  "I may disagree with what you [preach, 
practice, believe], but I will defend to the death your right to [preach, 
practice, believe] it."  I never persecuted others, I only ask they don't 
now persecute me...so perhaps Voltaire's more provocative quote may be 
appropriate here:  "Not only is it extremely cruel to persecute in this 
brief life those who do not think the way we do, but I do not know if it 
might be too presumptuous to declare their eternal damnation."  (Nice 
quote, for an atheist.)

4.  The main difference between acceptable "evangelizing" and improper 
"prosthelytizing" can be summarized in one word:  "punishment."   I never 
prosthelytized (forced my faith on others), in two years onboard I only 
invited Sailors to optionally-attended worship meetings, and no Sailors 
were ever punished for disagreeing with my evangelistic sermons.  But when 
I disagreed with the forced-pluralism religion of four liberal senior 
chaplains, who advised my CO to punish me for failing to pray, preach, and 
practice their non-evangelical faith, my CO punished me with all the 
authority of the government.  So really, who's prosthelytizing whom?

Everybody please call or write me with your interview questions!  Again, 
please invite your students to review in depth the documents on my 
web-site:  <http://www.persuade.tv>www.persuade.tv   Great case-study on 
1st Amendment religious freedoms.

God Bless you all,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
757-444-1050
<mailto:chaplaingate at yahoo.com>chaplaingate at yahoo.com



"A.E. Brownstein" <aebrownstein at ucdavis.edu> wrote:
Dear Chaplain Klingenschmitt,

I wonder if I might take you up on your offer and ask you one or two
questions about your understanding of the role of military Chaplains.

1. Are there any circumstances where the religious expression of a Chaplain
may be restricted because of its impact on the ability of military
personnel to work effectively together in performing their duties. For
example, suppose a Chaplain expressed religiously based, disparaging
remarks about members of other faiths. Let me paraphrase a comment I read
while traveling abroad. A prominent religious figure stated with regard to
Hindu, Moslem and Jewish groups in his community, "Their different
religions cannot all be right. Some, or all of them, are wrong. And if
wrong, they are the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan -- devised to
destroy the life of the believers." (I do not attribute this language or
belief to you in any way. I'm just trying to come up with the most
provocative hypothetical I can to determine the parameters of doctrine in
this area.)

I think Professor Volokh's comments on the list were not focused so much on
requiring Chaplains to express non-sectarian messages. I think his key
point was that some religious messages might make it difficult for soldiers
of different faiths to work together -- and that the military might have
the constitutional authority to limit such expression.

2. In exigent circumstances, when a Chaplain of a soldier's own faith is
unavailable, what are the obligations of a Chaplain of one faith with
regard to personnel of other faiths? What does it mean for someone like
yourself, a Christian Chaplain, to "care for all" when ministering to the
needs of a Buddhist or Jewish sailor?

I think both questions raise difficult issues. As you suggest, military
Chaplains are obliged by their faith to express the substance of what they
believe. But I might reasonably be concerned if people I depend on are told
that my religious beliefs are "the monstrous lies and deceits of Satan --
devised to destroy the life of the believers." Similarly, I understand
that asking Chaplains to be religiously ambidextrous may be inconsistent
with the demands of their faith. But I also think that providing solace to
someone of another faith may require the ability to speak in terms that are
meaningful to that person's experience and traditions.

I appreciate any thoughts you might have on these questions -- but I would
certainly understand if other commitments preclude you from taking the time
to respond. If you do respond and would like me to make your comments
available on the religionlaw list, I would be pleased to post them on the list.

Sincerely,

Alan Brownstein
Professor of Law
School of Law
University of California, Davis



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050809/cfc10499/attachment.htm